, esq. was again called in; the substance of his Examination is as follows:

Upon being examined as to the point, he informed the Committee, that the Company made advances to the native weavers, for the purpose of enabling them to proceed with their manufacture, &c. as he believed, without requiring interest for such advance; and that the commodity was not likely to be produced without such advance.

Do not you know that the intercourse of Europeans with the Malays has been productive of massacres of the Europeans?—I have often heard of accidents of that kind happening, and have always been informed that the Malays are of a very vindictive and violent temper.

Have not whole crews of ships of small burthen been cut off by the Malays to your knowledge?—I have no doubt there have been such things.

What would be the effect of an indiscriminate intercourse of Europeans with the Malays?—I think they would all be in great danger of losing their lives, those resorting there.

You said yesterday, that you thought considerable danger would arise from the promiscuous intercourse between the Europeans that would flock to India, in case of the opening of the trade, and the Hindoos, without certain regulations; do you think the present regulations adopted by the Company in respect of Europeans, not servants of the Company, would be sufficient, or that it would be necessary to adopt any further regulations?—I think it would be very difficult, if not almost impracticable, to frame regulations which would obviate all the bad consequences which might arise.

Do you think that if it was necessary to adopt any stricter regulations with respect to the intercourse between the Europeans, not servants of the Company, and the Hindoos, those regulations would diminish the advantages which would otherwise accrue to the merchants that might engage in the open trade?—Inasmuch as it might subject them to additional expence, by being restrained from pervading all parts of the country, I think it would have that effect.

You stated in your evidence yesterday, that it was a custom of the Gentoos to devote themselves as voluntary victims before the temple of Juggernaut, lying down to be crushed to death under the car of the idol; are those self-devotions peculiar to Juggernaut, or do they prevail at the other temples of the idols in India?—By no means, they do not.

Is not Juggernaut the resort of pilgrims, and persons of more than ordinary religious zeal, from all parts of Hindostan?—It certainly is.

And the Company, by means of persuasion, has interfered to check the practices which have been spoken of?—The only practice, to which I apprehend my answer applied, was that of devoting themselves under the car; that does not apply to all Hindoos who go there.

Did that interference ever produce any insurrection or disturbance?—It never did, to my knowledge; but I stated before, if coercion had been used, it might have led to more bloodshed than the devotion of the few who devoted themselves to destruction.

The persuasion of the Indian government did, in your opinion, prevent a great many of those zealots devoting themselves to death, who came there for the purpose?—According to my information, they have been less numerous since the Company got possession of Juggernaut than before.

Do you then suppose that peaceable interference, by persuasion, to correct any other of their religious prejudices would produce any ill consequences?—Much would depend upon the manner in which that persuasion was used, and the object of using it.

The question supposes that the interference was by persuasion merely, without any coercion, or any threat of coercion?—Such persuasion must have some purpose; therefore I cannot say, what might have been its effect, unless the purpose were avowed.

Suppose the purpose to be the prevention of any other of their sanguinary or criminal religious practices?—I conceive any direct interference, such as I have before stated with respect to Juggernaut, might be productive of the most mischievous consequences.

For what reason do you suppose that interference of the, same kind, which has not produced mischievous consequences at Juggernaut, should produce mischievous consequences?—I have the same opinion on that question as I had on the question regarding Juggernaut, that persuasion may operate as a check and lessen the continuance of such practices.

Then you do not suppose that persuasion alone would produce any ill effects?—I do suppose that if that persuasion was constantly resorted to, it might excite dissatisfaction, and be productive of bad consequences, not dissimilar to those which I conceived might have arisen from any act of force at Juggernaut.

Is there any act of faith among them that they hold in greater veneration than that self-devotion at Juggernaut?—I am not sufficiently acquainted with all the articles of their faith, to be able to give any precise answer to that question.

Do not you suppose that that act of faith which induces a man to devote himself to a cruel and immediate death, must be at least as sacred in his estimate as any other?—[Directed to withdraw.]

, the chairman, here desired that the witness might withdraw, and stated to the Committee the serious doubts he entertained, whether the course they were pursuing was not defective in point of form. There were no allusions in the Petitions presented to the House, or in the propositions submitted by the noble lord upon the subject of the East India charter, either to the mythology of the Hindoos, or the policy of attempting their conversion from their ancient faith. There was certainly in the last Resolution, a plan suggested for a limited church establishment; but as this involved not a question of estabment but of extent only, he submitted, without wishing to express any decided opinion, whether any questions framed with a view to a scheme for sending out missionaries, were regular in the present stage of the proceeding.

declared that he had been drawn reluctantly, but he hoped not irregularly, into the train of interrogations which he had pursued.

thought the last Resolution constituted a sufficient ground for the questions that had been put, relative to the practicability of extending and propagating Christianity id India.

said, the Resolution was so framed as not to raise a question as to the course which should be followed in giving religious instruction to the people of India. It certainly was not intended to open the door to all persons who might wish to proceed there, to promulgate those doctrines, which they might conceive proper, nor yet to establish a prohibition against the admission of persons of that description, The control which would be necessary was left to the discretion of parliament, and he thought the question could be argued better on general principles, than in detail, as the latter mode would probably lead to a great deal of partial feeling on the subject, without producing any good.

spoke in favour of the course of examination pursued, as no mode was pointed out in the beginning, on which the examination of witnesses should particularly proceed. He conceived it was right to devise the best means for extending to the inhabitants of India, those blessings which we enjoyed in this life, and to instruct them in that religion, through which we expected to enjoy happiness in the next.

said, that the massacre of three or four hundred British soldiers in an Indian fortress, ought to act as a warning against interfering with the religion of the people of India.

observed, that all which had been stated, seemed to be mere matter of opinion, and therefore, it was almost waste of time to ask the sentiments of individuals on this subject.

was against all interference with the religion of the Hindoos. Their prejudices on this subject, he said, were so strong, that such interference would lead to a general massacre. Talking on the subject when he was in India, to a well informed brahmin, he told him that any liberties might be taken with, their properties, but that they ought to allow a poor brahmin to worship God in his own way. If gentlemen were determined to persist in this enquiry on religious subject, it ought to be referred to a secret committee.

The Witness was then recalled, and in answer to the question said, 'I am not aware that it is an article of their faith.'

Upon what principle then is the sacrifice made?—They think they will be happier hereafter.

You stated, that you apprehended danger from a promiscuous and unrestrained intercourse of Europeans with the natives, because the Europeans might interfere with the religious prejudices and habits of the natives; did that answer relate to persons going to propagate Christianity only, or to mercantile adventurers also?—I think it would apply still more forcibly to persons endeavouring to promote Christianity, having so avowed their object, inasmuch as it might appear, in that case, to come from authority; and I believe it is now forty years since the wisdom of this House passed an Act, protecting the natives of India in the exercise of their laws and religion; having enjoyed that security for such a length of time, I think nothing can be more dangerous than any interference which shall cause them the alarm of any intention of a change.

You suppose that the objection applies in some degree also to mercantile adventurers?—In as far as they from ignorance of their prejudices might trespass upon them.

Would that danger be more from mercantile adventurers not in connection with the government, than from mercantile adventurers in connection with government?—I conceive it would be more, for one reason, that the servants of the Company are completely in the power of the government, and are well acquainted with all the regulations; and it is an understood injunction to all of them, to avoid any thing which shall in any shape trespass upon the prejudices of the natives.

Do you know of any insurrection, or any popular commotion, occasioned by their efforts to preach Christianity?—I have a recollection that the same year as I left Calcutta, one of the missionaries, whose name I forget, went near to a place called Chitpoore, at least so it was reported to me, for I was not present, who did endeavour to preach to them, but it ended in an affray; what were the consequences of it I really do not know.

Did you ever hear of the missionary Scbwartz?—I have heard of him; nay, I have seen him.

Was he not for a great many years indefatigable in his efforts to convert the Gentoos to Christianity?—He was unre- mitting in his efforts to make Christians, but from what religion or persuasion I know not.

Did you ever hear of any revolution, or insurrection, or popular commotion, occasioned by the labours of Schwartz?—He was a man of great discretion, and I apprehend he only invited such as showed a disposition to attend him.

The Chairman was directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

presented a Petition from the master manufacturers and others connected with the Staffordshire potteries, in favour of Peace. The present petitioners, though among those who had suffered most from the war, had not been seduced by the example of others, into any acts of violence. They had borne the evils brought upon them with exemplary patience, and they now approached that House with the greatest decorum, to state their grievances in a constitutional manner, and to ask for that which they conceived would afford them relief. He concurred with them in thinking peace very desirable, if a peace could be made consistent with the honour of the country, and consistent with good faith to our allies. He concurred with them in thinking the late glorious events on the continent afforded grounds for entertaining a more sanguine hope that such a peace might now be concluded than could reasonably be entertained for many years past. If the energies of those countries which were now disposed to rise in opposition to the tyranny of Buonaparté, were properly called forth—if the resources of those countries were properlyused—if the allies abstained from directing their views to selfish and partial aggrandisement, evincing moderation in success, he thought when it was seen they were guided by such feelings, it might be expected the effect of their conduct, even on that country, which, from national pride, might be most disposed to support Buonaparté, would be such as to induce a sincere wish for peace. While he concurred with the petitioners in anxiously desiring the restoration of peace, he wished to state, that he did not agree with them that it would be expedient for that House to take the subject into consideration. Such a step, he feared, would rather retard than accelerate that which it was their object to accomplish. He did not say that at no period, and under no circumstances, it would be proper for that House to interfere and offer its advice to the crown, on the subject of peace. If, for instance, ministers pursued measures of selfish aggrandisement, forgetful that the legitimate end of all war was peace, then he thought it would be the duty of the House to interfere by addressing the Prince Regent, and praying a change of ministers, On their part, however, he had not been able to see any indisposition to do every thing in their power to procure a safe and honourable peace, and therefore he could not concur in the prayer of the petitioners. He should move that it be brought up. An hon. gentleman had given notice of a motion on the subject of peace. When that motion was made, there would be an opportunity of amply discussing the object of the petitioners.

The Petition was brought up and read, and ordered to lie on the table.

said, he held in his hand a Petition, the object and the language of which was similar to that which had just been presented by the noble lord. He moved that it be brought up. The Petition was then brought up and read. It was from certain inhabitants of Leeds and its neighbourhood, in favour of peace. The hon. gentleman then called the attention of the House to the very moderate and proper language in which the prayer of these as well as that of the last petitioners was expressed. He begged also to call the attention of the House to the general good conduct of these petitioners, under all the privations to which they had been exposed under all these sufferings, from this dismally long protracted war. The noble lord had spoken of the notice which he (Mr. Whitbread) had given, and which he had afterwards deferred till after the recess, without naming a day, but saying, he might yet feel it his duty to do so before the end of the session. He could not yet name the period when he would make that motion. During the present war he had brought forward some motions, and supported others, on the subject of peace. On this subject, he believed, he had carried his ideas further than most members of that House were disposed to go. He had, however, only made or supported such motions when he thought ministers did not do all they might to effectuate that which at all times ought to be their object, and now more than at any former period,—the legitimate end of war, an honourable and sub- stantial peace. He was aware that if ever there was a period when greater difficulties would be opposed to the attainment of an honourable peace than at any other; it was that at which their table should be covered with petitions on this subject, and therefore he had always wished to guard against the House being placed in this situation, by taking it up before it came to this, that the executive government might not be cramped in its negociations by such a circumstance. At an early period of the session, he had taken an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on the subject of peace in an Amendment which he had thought it his duty to move to the Address. He had given notice of a motion, but the fortunate events which had taken place on the continent of Europe, fortunate if they were turned to a good account, which brought news better and better from day to day, while it increased our hopes, had added, by new connections, to the difficulties in. the way of an immediate return to peace. These difficulties were, it was true, of a pleasing nature, but difficulties they were, and feeling this, he had thought it right to leave the executive unfettered in their operations by any parliamentary resolution. This he should still do till he saw reason to despair of the cause; to doubt of their keeping peace in view as their object, or till it appeared, having such object in view, they wanted sufficient energy to accomplish it. If he saw entertained by ministers any of those wild chimerical projects, which at various periods had been entertained by the English government in the course of the present contest, if he saw any countenance given to that Proclamation which had been put forth as issued by Louis the 18th, or if he saw any plan entertained for changing the government of France, then he should feel it his duty to bring the subject under the consideration of the House; then he should wish petitions to be presented from all parts of the country, and think every possible exertion ought to be made to arrest the career of an administration, whose intentions were bent on a project so desperate and chimerical. If he thought an attempt were made to push the present successes on the continent further than in wisdom they could be carried, then should he think an Address to the throne, praying a change of ministers, desirable, or a direct address, as at the close of the American war, praying that negociations might be opened with the enemy. He thought with the noble lord, that the present prosperous state of things opened to us a prospect of obtaining an honourable peace, which could not have been looked for some months ago. This opportunity might be lost by ministers, yet still he felt that parliamentary interference at this time would be highly improper. On the present occasion, he should be glad to hear from the noble lord opposite a more distinct disavowal of that proclamation to which he had already alluded, than he had given on a former night. He should be glad for him to disavow, not only the proclamation but also a participation in the views of it. On this subject it was for the noble lord to be silent or not as he thought proper. If he were silent, his silence he should regard as extremely ominous. His disavowal of all participation in it would be most satisfactory, and might tend to effect that which was the prayer of the Petitions.

said, that whenever the hon. gentleman thought proper to bring forward any motion, the object of which would be to impeach the past conduct of ministers, or to submit to the House any resolutions for the regulation of their conduct prospectively, it would then be his duty to explain the principles on which they had acted. With respect to the last topic touched upon by the hon. gentleman, he had already stated, that ministers were no party whatever to the proclamation which had been mentioned. They had, however, felt, that there was nothing in the tone of it to justify any interference on the part of government. It would have been, discreditable to them to have fettered the will of the head of that unfortunate family to whom we had afforded an asylum, if it would not have appeared like converting that asylum into a prison. If the hon. gentleman thought ministers were parties to that paper, or in any way tied up to any particular line of conduct, he begged distinctly to state that this was not the fact. He would assure the hon. gentleman, that they were as free to pursue any line of conduct which might be called for by the interests of this country, as ever they had been at any former period. He admitted that before the proclamation appeared, he knew that such a paper was to come out, but any knowledge of it, as to approving of it or being in any way a party to it, he denied.

observed, that the hon. gentleman had represented the noble lord (lord G, L. Gower) to have said that this was a proper time for attempting to negotiate a peace, and stated himself in that to agree with the noble lord. He had gone with the noble lord, in all he had said, which he could not have done had he made such a statement. He understood the noble lord to have said that circumstances justified sanguine hopes, and in this he cordially agreed, but he did not understand him to have said the present was a favourable opportunity for negociating a peace. Though he applauded the conduct of government with respect to the proclamation, he hesitated not to say of that paper, that as the act of the rightful heir to the throne of France, from his soul, and with all his heart and judgment, he highly approved of it. If a declaration so wise, so moderate, so benignant, could find its way to the eyes and ears of the French, it would be likely to produce the wished for effect, and tend to overthrow that military tyranny which was established in France, and as fatal to that country as inconsistent with the repose of Europe.

said, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) had understood him rightly, and had not misrepresented him.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

then presented Petitions of a similar nature from Melbourn, Heanor, Matlock, Derby, Loughborough, and several other places, and observed, that he hoped this constitutional mode of expressing the wishes of the people would be always pursued, under every privation and suffering which they endured. When their prayers were expressed in moderate and respectful language, he was sure they would always meet in that House the readiest attention, the utmost consolation, and the best redress, that could be afforded them.

The Petitions were all laid on the table.

rose to give notice, that he would take an early opportunity of bringing forward a motion upon a subject strongly affecting the privileges of that House. He alluded to a trial which had taken place at Lancaster about ten days ago, the result of which, he thought, was such as to trench upon their privileges as members of parliament. He did not mean to find fault with the learned judge who presided at the trial, well knowing his integrity and learning, but he was anxious that the House should take the subject into their consideration. When he had made himself more fully acquainted with the whole of the grounds of the proceeding, he would name a day for bringing forward his motion.

said, his object in the motion which he was about to submit to the House, was to call their attention to the foundation on which the superstructure of the plan of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was erected—whether the measure of his right hon. friend was a true and equitable construction of the Acts of the 26th, the 32d and the 42d of the King; and whether, without a breach of faith with the public creditor, he had the means of carrying into effect ail the details of the Bill now before the House. Seldom, he believed, had any alteration of such importance as that proposed by the right hon. gentleman taken place without a previous examination before a committee. In 1802, it was true, there was no committee, but he should require no better passport to his motion than the inconvenience which had resulted from that act. He should move that a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the Acts of the 26th, 32d and 42d of his Majesty, and to report to the House, whether, due regard being had to the just claims of the holders of shares in the several public funded securities, purchased subject to the operations of the said Acts, any and what part of the monies placed to the account of the Commissioners for reducing the National Debt, can now be placed at the disposal of parliament. Upon the true construction of these Acts must undoubtedly depend the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to erect his superstructure. He should propose also that the Committee be composed of the present Attorney and Solicitor General, two hon. friends of his who had been formerly Attorney and Solicitor General, the governor and deputy governor of the Bank, and about twelve or 13 independent gentlemen, who might be taken from either side of the House. He wanted to see whether twenty-one gentlemen could be found to report that this was the true construction of these acts of parliament. He knew how easy it was to make dextrous speeches on the subject;

but he did not believe that twenty-one gentlemen could be found who would report that what was proposed to be done could take place without a violation of public faith. He thought it would be difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to resist this motion, unless he said he would make his alteration without any authentic document to warrant it. The documents on the subject lay in a small compass. The Act of 1786, so much to the credit of Mr. Pitt, vested one million in the hands of certain gentlemen till it should accumulate to the amount of three millions. The object of Mr. Pitt was to let that fund go on at compound interest, till the principal and interest together should have produced a sinking fund equal to four millions; that then the compound interest should cease, and the sums then be placed at the disposal of parliament. So stood things till 1792, when Mr. Pitt proposed a further measure to give relief to the public credit. The addition was this—that any savings from the reduced rate of interest should be placed in the hands of the commissioners, that all future loans should carry with them such an additional sum as would pay them off in the course of 45 years, and that one per cent. of each loan should be vested as a sinking fund in the hands of the commissioners. This went on till 1802, when a great deal of financial difficulty was experienced by lord Sidmouth, who had 870,000l. of new taxes to raise. He had to provide for a loan of thirty millions, and for fifty-six-millions, for which the income tax was mortgaged, but which, as the income tax could not exist after the peace, fell then to be provided for by him. The arrangement made was, that for this fifty-six millions no one per cent. should be issued. This was called a Consolidation Act; and it consisted of certain arrangements for the consolidation of the old and new debt, and the sinking fund. The question now was, whether, in the terms of that Act of 1802, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer could follow the course he had announced. By the plan of the right hon. gentleman, within four years from its commencement, the sinking fund would be less by seven millions than it would be under the operation of the law as it now stood.—A subject of discussion among them formerly was now set at rest by the Act; for it was then distinctly stated, that none of the operations of the right hon. gentleman should take place, unless such a sinking fund was to remain as would reduce the debt in 45 years. He would ask, whether there was any thing in the law, as it now stood, which subjected the sinking fund to lose this seven millions in four years? He contended, that the right hon. gentleman had no right, in point of good faith, not using the words in an invidious tense, but as the shortest he could employ, to take this sum from the sinking fund. By the Act of 1802, the sums placed in the hands of the commissioners were directed to be appropriated and accumulated in the manner directed by the Acts for the redemption of the national debt, and to be applied either in the payment or redemption of annuities, until the whole sums charged on the public revenue of Great Britain should be completely redeemed and purchased. The Act was imperative, 'until all the debt then existing should be entirely redeemed.' It was impossible for any words to have a more definite meaning. Then came the expression on which the gentlemen on the other side relied, 'So as that the whole of the redeemable annuities shall be paid off' within 45 years after the creation of the charges.' Generally speaking, that which came first was as important as that which came last. That the sums should be appropriated and accumulated were the words of the Act. To make out the meaning of the Act, he had looked into all the debates of the period. He knew that the printed debates were not absolutely to be relied on; but it was easy for any gentleman, who knew any thing of the subject, to trace the hand of a master, and to discover when a member had himself taken the trouble to give his sentiments to posterity. He could remember perfectly well, that among other advantages of his measure, lord Sidmouth stated that of the reducing the 5 and 4 per cents. to a lower rate of interest. But putting all recollections out of the case, he had looked into the Resolutions on which the Bill was brought in. There it is declared, that if the two sinking funds should be continually appropriated at compound interest to the redemption of the public debt, that object would be accomplished in 45 years. That was the first resolution, and it distinctly stated, that if the funds were allowed to go on accumulating at compound interest, the debt would be redeemed within 45 years. The last resolution stated the expediency of providing, that the sums to be consolidated should be continually applied at compound interest; and in this resolution there is no word of 45 years. The first resolution stated, that the effect of the measure would be the redemption of the debt in 45 years; but the last on which leave was given to bring in the Bill, said not a word about this; but expressly said, that the two sinking funds should accumulate at compound interest, till the whole of the debt should be redeemed. Would the right hon. gentleman say, with gravity of countenance, that it was the same thing to the public creditor, if his debt was paid off in 45 years, or if the sinking fund should accumulate at compound interest? In the different Reports which had been laid before the House on the effects of the sinking fund, one stated that the debt would be redeemed within 33 years, another not till 55 years, but all were bottomed on the fact that the fund was to accumulate at compound interest. This was the sine qua non. He had never heard this doubted before. He knew that in the discussion in 1802, some objections were stated by the right hon. gentleman to the measure, from the great inconvenience which would be felt when the sinking fund was too large. But if this could be cured by diffusing it over 45 years, where was the foundation for the argument which the right hon. gentleman then used? What did the calculation say which accompanied the plan? That under the Act the debt would not only be redeemed within 45 years, but if stocks were at 3 and a¼, the surplus, which would be all between that and 5, would be applied at compound interest. All that he asked was that before proceeding on this Bill they should know what they were doing. It might be a very excellent device that no new taxes should be raised this year; but it was not so well if other persons were made to pay for this. The right hon. gentleman, because he found the words 45 years in the act of parliament, concluded he had a right to take 7 millions from the sinking fund. He did not believe that it was ever attempted before by mere eloquence to convince 650 gentlemen to take such a step without the sanction of a previous committee. The stocks were lower now than they were in 1802; and the unhappy stockholders were to be cut off from this benefit at a moment when they were losers. He had done enough for his own purpose, if he had shewn that there was a reasonable doubt as to the construction of the Act. What objection could there be to the appointment of a committee, if he left to the ministry the nomination of the majority? If the opinion of the right hon. gentleman should turn out to be well founded, there could be no longer any dispute whether or not there was a breach of public faith. It would go down to posterity that the House selected some of the most respectable of their body, to see whether they could, without a breach of public faith, take this money from the sinking fund. But if they were at once to lay their hands on the seven millions, all that would appear would be the act of the legislature, by which three most material acts of parliament were altered, and public credit shaken, for no other reason but because it suited the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the motion should be agreed to, there would be no longer any reason to talk of a breach of public faith; a committee up stairs would set the matter at rest. It was not unusual at present for gentlemen out of doors to say they did not understand finance; all they knew was, that it was very convenient not to be troubled for four years by the tax-gatherer. This was the strongest measure to which public credit was ever subjected. The right hon. gentleman had wrapped it up in such a variety of figures, that it was not-easy to understand it. Did he doubt that the more discussion should take place on it, the more it would be understood? If he wished it to be understood, for his own character's sake, they ought to put on their Journals that they were not acting in haste. He knew that two years would not elapse before they would be called to account for this measure. The right hon. gentleman had gone on with very great dexterity: he had stated that no diminution of the sinking fund would take place for one year. According to his (Mr. T.' s) opinion, if more was taken out of a thing than was put in, the thing would be less. The right hon. gentleman, however, had conceived, by putting one quarter in advance, and by putting another sum behind, by a number of tricks which he would not call hocus pocus, to make it appear that for the first year no diminution of the sinking fund would take place. Let the right hon. gentleman try for a loan next year under the pressure of this plan, and then say that it had not produced its effect. All he wanted of the House was to implore them that they would not even do what was right without enquiry; He concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the Acts passed for the more effectual reduction of the national debt, in the 26th, 32d and 42d years of his Majesty's reign, and to report to the House whether due regard being had to the just claims of the holders of shares in the several public funded securities, purchased subject to the operations of the said Acts, any and what part of the monies placed to the account of the commissioners for reducing the national debt, can now be placed at the disposal of parliament."

contended, that on no former occasion of a similar nature, although very considerable changes had been made in the financial arrangements of the country, had any committee been previously appointed to investigate the details of the subject. In 1798, in 1799, and in 1800, when provisions were made of a very different nature from those usually enacted; and when a large part of the debt was transferred from one security to another, no previous enquiry by a committee was deemed necessary. On those occasions the debt incurred was not accompanied by any provision, but the whole burden of it was thrown on futurity, yet no previous committee was demanded. The question at present before parliament must be decided by a reference either to the words of the act of parliament, or to the terms of the contracts for the respective loans. It was notorious that no such engagements as those described by the right hon. gentleman formed any part of the contracts for any of the loans. No one had ever, in any former instance, suggested the appointment of a committee.—[Mr. Tierney said, across the table, that he had on a former occasion done so.]—He had forgotten; the right hon. gentleman had certainly moved for a committee. The right hon. gentleman now followed his own precedent; and he hoped the House would follow their precedent on the occasion alluded to, by negativing the right hon. gentleman's proposition. He would now read an extract from an official paper of 1807, shewing, that the marquis of Lansdowne and lord Grenville recognised, at that period, the principle which he had recently maintained, with respect to the simple necessity of redeeming the various parts of the debt within 45 years after their contraction. Mr. Pitt had some years before maintained the same doctrine.

His plan would redeem the debt in a less time than originally proposed, and that without any injury to the public creditor. The principle on which it was founded, had never before been controverted—it had never been said that it was a breach of public faith. The Bill in progress through the House was actually a guarantee to the public creditor, that the redemption of the debt should not extend beyond 45 years. It was curious to observe the difference made by some hon. gentlemen between principle and practice. Now, was breach of faith so loose and undefinable a thing, that it depended on times and circumstances? He contended that the plan which he had submitted to parliament involved no breach of faith; but he would not consent to the appointment of a committee, for the purpose of endeavouring to discover whether by possibility any doubts could be suggested on points, respecting which parliament had already unequivocally decided. Adverting to the plan detailed recently by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Huskisson), namely, that the loan of the present year should be charged on the sinking fund; making good the deficiency thus occasioned in the sinking fund from the war taxes, he observed, that his hon. friend went out of his way to recommend a breach of faith (as the right hon. gentleman would, he presumed, term it,) but a breach of faith unaccompanied with any compensating advantages. If the right hon. gentleman's position were good for any thing, it must establish the fact that the public creditor would be placed in a worse situation by the new measure than he would have been in had no alteration been proposed. But this was not the case. To prove this he entered into a variety of details, and insisted on the superiority of advantage which the immediate grant of 900,0001. would give the public creditor over the remote and contingent benefit of which the existing system held out to him the expectation. By the enactments of the year 1802, the redemption of the debt might be protracted to the year 1835. By the proposed measure it must be effected by the year 1830. The principle of his plan had received the sanction of Mr. Pitt, the illustrious author of the sinking fund; it had received the sanction of lord Henry Petty and lord Grenville; authorities inferior only to that of Mr. Pitt. He concluded by repeating his dissent from the motion; declaring that he could not sit down without congratulating the House on having already made provision for four years of war.

argued, that, according to the principles of justice, the fruit of the accumulation of the sinking fund, by compound interest, was applicable to the benefit of the public creditor, for whose security the fund was created, and not to the purposes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other minister who might be disposed to touch that sacred property. Indeed, the proposition of the right hon. gentleman was quite monstrous. But what was to be thought of his plan to pay the public creditor, but a comparatively small sum truly for a few years, while the remainder of the debt, by increased payments, was to be discharged within 45 years? If a creditor who had covenanted to pay 20,000l. at the rate of 1,000l. a year, should afterwards only pay 500l. a year for the first ten years, and 2,000l. a year for the remaining ten, he would discharge his debt to be sure, but he would not execute his covenant—he would not keep his faith, and the public faith ought to be literally and most faithfully kept. That faith, however, the right hon. gentleman proposed to violate—he did not mean intentionally, but such unquestionably was the general interpretation of his plan among those out of doors, at least among several respectable individuals connected with the public securities, whose opinion he had had an opportunity of collecting. Such an interpretation then prevailing, not only out of doors, but in the minds of many members of that House, he would appeal to the consideration of those who thought with the right hon. gentleman, whether an investigation before the proposed committee was not desirable, in order to ascertain, whether the interpretation he had stated was correct—whether the doubts and apprehensions which had gone abroad upon the subject were well-founded. The existence of such doubts was alone a sufficient reason for the appointment of the committee, whose report would no doubt be satisfactory to all parties.

observed, that the gentlemen on the other side appeared to think that the system of the sinking fund had never been meddled with by parliament—that it was quite inviolable; whereas, in fact, liberties were taken with that system in the years 1793, 1799 and 1800, no one per cent. having been set apart, or sinking fund created upon the loans of the several years. Yet upon these occasions no breach of public faith was alleged or insinuated, nor was any outcry raised of a departure from the principle of the sinking fund. The system of the sinking fund was also broken in upon in the years of 1802 and 1807. Yet no such objections were urged in either case as were now put forward. But as to the general merits of the plan of his right hon. friend, the only question, in his judgment, was, whether a certain sum should be taken for the public service from the fund for redeeming the public debt now or seven years hence—or at what time it would be proper to make this deduction, so as to guard against the advance of that fund to an inconvenient size? The only question then was as to time, and that such was the view of lords Grenville and H. Petty, was evident from the plan which they submitted to the consideration of parliament; and he concurred with his right hon. friend as to the time he selected for making the proposed deduction from this fund, while he approved of the general merits of his plan, because while it would operate to discharge the public debt sooner, and in a more gradual manner than the existing system, the country would have to pay less taxes.

, while he agreed that there was nothing in the existing law to prevent the proposed arrangement, strongly disapproved of that arrangement, which he regarded as a direct infraction of the public faith. He thought it therefore highly impolitic, and in no degree to be excused by any public necessity. For although an advocate for economy, both on a small and a large scale, because he thought that economy indispensible to the maintenance of our financial system, yet he deemed our means amply sufficient to provide for our current expences without invading a fund set apart for the security of the public creditor—without violating that which ought to be held sacred. From such a, course of proceeding, he apprehended the most serious evil. Indeed he had no doubt that if the plan of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were adopted, the consequences would be most sensibly felt by the country in the loans to be contracted for, particularly if the war should continue for many years. That such a plan must injure public credit, appeared to him quite obvious. Yet he was assured by some gentlemen in that House connected with the public funds, that this plan would not produce the consequences he apprehended;—he should be glad to find their assurances justified by the event, as he had no doubt that the plan would be adopted. With respect to the Act of 1802, it had been stated that at that period it was not supposed the funds would have been reduced so low as they were at present, but he really should not be surprised, if the war continued three or four years longer, to see the 3 per cents. as low as 50. He was among those who opposed the Act of 1802, and one of the evils which he expressly apprehended from its adoption, had now occurred in the proposition of another measure infringing the public faith, and after the passing of this measure, what, he would ask, was to prevent any minister from coming forward again in four or five years to strip the sinking fund, asserting that it would be sufficient to provide for the reduction of any debt within 45 years from the period of its creation, which he (Mr. B.) contended was not a correct construction of the Act to which it applied? Here the hon. gentleman, after ridiculing the idea of any alarm as to the fund for redeeming the public debt, growing to an inconvenient size, or as to the too sudden extinction of that debt, particularly at a period when it was so materially increased, proceeded to analyze the tables of calculation upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan was founded, which tables he asserted to contain much fallacy. From one of these tables he collected that the discharge of the public debt was to be accelerated by appropriating the one per cent. usually set apart from each loan, not to the liquidation of such loan, as heretofore, but to create a sinking fund for the discharge of the prior debt. Then his right honourable friend's object would be best promoted by raising large loans.—The hon. gentleman concluded by strongly recommending the adoption of the motion.

in explanation, maintained that his hon. friend's interpretation of the table referred to, was quite incorrect.

urged, that it was material in comparing the acts of parliament, not to consider the contract implied in the mere words, but what would be sufficient to justify them in the practice. He urged that, by withdrawing the purchases usually made, the value of the stock was lessened, and the contract with the public creditor infringed on. In 1802 the alteration made in the sinking fund principle promised a future advantage, and this was the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time in favour of his measure. This was not the case with the present plan. He would take a future opportunity of stating his opinions more fully, as he doubted the efficacy of the sinking fund, which, however, was no reason for departing from public faith.

professed the same attachment and veneration for the good faith of the public as the hon. gentleman who spoke last—but no violation was attempted by the measure now under consideration—Good policy as well as strict justice required that every pledge given to the public creditor should be scrupulously maintained, but all the attempts to prove this to be a breach of faith, were futile in the extreme, and all the ingenuity and industry that had been employed, had failed to impress upon the mind of one rational man either in the city of London, or in any part of the kingdom, any alarm for the public credit of the nation.—He did not understand the view which some persons took of this subject in supposing the public creditor alone was interested in the sinking fund acts; he thought the public quite as much interested in them upon the fair and enlarged view of the subject. Would the public creditor have been satisfied to have stood upon those Acts alone? Certainly not. The public had often interposed in his favour, and given him boons to which he had no positive right. He alluded to the land tax redemption, and the war taxes; by the first measure, twenty four millions of debt had been paid off, and by the last, three hundred millions had been raised, which would otherwise have increased our debt, and in so doing, materially affected the interest of the public creditor. He was surprised at the proposition of his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney.) It was absurd to talk of a committee to construe three acts of parliament, which every body was capable of understanding; he considered the motion therefore as meaning delay, and nothing else. If he had any better plan to propose, he wished he would bring it forward, he had long considered the subject, and if he proposed nothing, it would only prove that he had found it much easier to object than to suggest. In 1807, many plans of finance were before the House, now, none but that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for that of his hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) he trusted was abandoned. That hon. gentleman wished he could in-trap his right hon. friend into a plan, but he was too wary to commit himself. If, however, these able financiers satisfied themselves with condemning what was proposed, the House would be convinced with him that they had nothing more advantageous to offer, and with that conviction he should support the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and vote against the motion for delay.

could not think the question before the House was one on which no doubt could exist, and he should have thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself would not have been of this opinion, as he must have had some doubts in 1809 on his own mind, when he declared the sinking fund could not be touched without injustice to the public creditor. He was sure the Act of 1802 had the sanction of Mr. Pitt. That Act, he contended, in no way infringed the Act of 1792. It was said that compound interest was not mentioned in the Act of the year 1802; on this much stress had been laid. It was true the words "compound interest" did not appear in that Act, but from the provisions it contained, some of which he quoted, it was past all doubt that compound interest was contemplated when that measure was framed. If any hon. gentleman could be authorised by the House to draw up a statement of what was meant by the Act of 1792, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would put down in writing what he conceived his new plan to be, then a fair case might be made out, on which a legal decision could be had; and if that decision declared the present measure to be no infringement of that Act, he could then only say he had misconceived it. At present, he thought it went to violate that Act, and the principle of the plan once admitted, he thought the day was not very distant when that principle would be pushed to its full extent, the measure of the right hon. gentleman thrown overboard, and the sinking fund done away altogether. At present he would not go into the general policy of the plan, but he should vote for the committee.

rose to give merely a legal opinion as to the effect of the present measure on the three acts of parliament which had so often been referred to. Looking at the letter, and at the spirit of those Acts, he could not feel any difficulty like his hon. friend, (who, though hostile to the principle of the plan, was obliged to admit that it did not violate the law,) in arriving at this conclusion, that it did not infringe them. He could not see the smallest violation of good faith in what was proposed to be done. The plan of 1786 was to pay off the principal of the public debt in 45 years. If they did this, whatever debt they contracted for the present time, they acted fairly by posterity, because it was to be remembered, that a great debt had been thrown on the present generation, by their ancestors. While they paid off the interest of the debts contracted in former times, and provided for the liquidation of those contracted now, they did all posterity had a right to expect. Adhering, as they did, while they adopted this plan, to the principle of paying off each debt contracted within the period of 45 years, they were guilty of no infraction of the original plan.

rose, not to join in this debate, but simply to state why he should vote for the committee. If the plan were perfectly consistent with good faith, then he would not dispute the policy of making the proposed remission of the public burdens at the present period. He doubted the possibility of this plan being adopted consistent with what he thought good faith between the public creditor and the state. He could not go the full extent of the view taken of the subject by his hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson), but he thought the House ought not to adopt this proceeding without seeking information from a committee, and adding one to that great body of reports which had been laid before the House on the subject of this law of the sinking fund. He did not agree with his hon. friend, that a legal opinion was sufficient to guide them on this occasion, and without any disrespect to the Attorney General he must say his doubts had not been removed by the opinion which he had delivered. His definition of the law went to make that expectation in the public creditor which had hitherto been confidence; For himself, he could not pretend to give an interpretation of the Acts in question; but up to the present debates, his impression had been, that the statute of 1792 had more permanency than an ordinary statute. He understood that the public debt was to be paid in 45 years, from the period at which it was contracted, but he did not understand that its payment was to be protracted to the full extent of 45 years. This, however, seemed to be the opinion of some gentlemen, who further appeared disposed to make a provision for securing the interference of parliament in the event of the sinking fund accumulating too fast. Knowing the anxiety of Mr. Pitt to guard against the nation being overwhelmed by the public debt, till these debates, he was not prepared to see gentlemen alarmed at the accumulation of the means of paying it off lest some fatal morning they should awake, and find themselves, poor deluded and defenceless creatures, without a debt to their backs! The right hon. gentleman proceeded strongly to urge the advantages which might be derived from referring the subject to a committee, and concluded by observing, that though it might be proper in the present instance to trench on the sinking fund, it must be allowed this ought not to be done indefinitely, and therefore it was expedient that the point to which the principle might be carried should be distinctly marked.

appealed to the House if ever a question like this could, with any regard to common sense, or to that duty which they owed to themselves, be referred to a committee. If the right hon. gentleman had thought the tables laid before the House were inaccurate, or in any respect imperfect, then he could clearly understand why he called for a committee. In no other instance, with the exception of that when the right hon. gentleman brought forward such a proposition, had the House degraded itself so far as to think of giving its own act to a select committee to explain. The instance to which he alluded was the only one in which they had deliberated on such a proposition, even to meet it with a negative; and he would lay it down as a principle not to be controverted, that were parliament to act in the manner recommended, its conduct would be degrading to itself and injurious to the country. The right hon. gentleman had said he was not competent to interpret the Acts which had been called in question: he wished for a committee to enlighten him on the subject. Now he should like to know who were to form the committee, which was thus called for, to instruct the feeble and innocent mind of the right hon. gentleman. The House must feel that more management was exercised to gain a convenient vote on this occasion, than was usually to be looked for. He had been surprised at the conduct of his hon. friend, who wishing merely to have a legal opinion on the I subject, had gone quite out of his way to combat the general policy of the measure. It appeared that those who opposed it were not prepared openly to call upon the House at once to reject it, but were happy to find a collateral ground of objection under which they could shelter themselves while raising a specious cry in favour of enquiry, in the hope of being able, by such covert means, to throw out the great state measure of his right hon. friend. The resolutions which had been read that night by the hon. gentleman, he could state, had been drawn up by the hand of Mr. Pitt. In the inference therefore which he had drawn, he had put himself in conflict with Mr. Pitt, and had thus opposed himself to an authority great on all subjects, but on this subject the most sacred authority that could be referred to. Mr. Pitt had approved of the Act of 1802. He would read the sentiments of Mr. Pitt on that Act. They were expressed in these words: "The sinking fund, by the present plan, is perfectly consistent with the original regulations made with respect to that fund, all the pledges of public faith are preserved, and the fund is made more than ever conducive to its object." The Act of 1802 pledged the nation to redeem the debt in 45 years, but did not go to place beyond the reach of parliament, the power of enacting such regulations, as it might be desirable to adopt (still keeping this principle in view) for the public good. The House, he trusted, would not be shaken in a measure which promised to be highly beneficial, not only to this country, but to the world at large, by the arguments of those who were glad to shelter themselves under a collateral motion, instead of openly meeting the great question. He trusted the House would without hesitation, and with the firmness which the times required, support the plan of his right hon. friend, which would not infringe upon the good faith which ought to be preserved inviolate between the public creditor and the state, but would make the enemy feel and dread the power and mighty resources of this country.

rose to reply. The object of his committee was to examine, whether, consistently with public faith, the measure of his right hon. friend could be adopted. For this purpose the Attorney and Solicitor General, and the governors of the Bank, would be members. But it might be said that the Attorney General had given his opinion. But he would appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, from a lawyer ignorant of the Acts to one with them before him. The Attorney General could not have read the Acts; there was nothing in the Act of 1786 about 45 years. He must have, dreamed. In his committee the Bank directors would consult with the lawyers, and thus a judgment as to the breach of public faith might be formed. If he were left in a minority, he should no longer entertain any doubt on the question of public faith, but leave the House with the full conviction, that parliament had not preserved that faith with the public creditor, which it was bound to do; nor would any high and sounding words adopted, or any affected passion which the noble lord might assume for the purpose of eliciting cries of hear! hear! from those around him, make any change in his sentiments. They were going to pay the Chancellor of the Exchequer a higher compliment than ever they paid Mr. Pitt in the zenith of his power, for they were going to put their hands into the pockets of the stockholders, whose interests, he asserted, were violated on this occasion.

The House divided—For the motion 59; Against it 152; Majority 93.